SecDef Nomination

6,221 Views | 91 Replies | Last: 19 days ago by Noblemen06
Hincemm
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I know this may turn into a political diatribe but trying to justify this nomination for Trump. No way it passes ?(right?!)

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-he-will-nominate-fox-news-host-pete-hegseth-defense-secretary-2024-11-13/
binsy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
We probably have some season ticket holders who are more qualified.
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Serious question

What, in everyone's opinion, are the actual qualifications?

Military Service?
Other Government Service?
High Military Rank?
High Government Rank?
Corporate Leadership?
Diplomatic Experience?
Political / Party Experience?
Mil. Industrial Complex Experience?
Something Else?

What makes one qualified?
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Other side of the coin -

What, if any, are the disqualifiers?
OldArmyCT
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The military is supposed to be run by civilians, remember? Even Eisenhower said so. That said he did deploy twice to an actual combat zone as an infantry officer, that's twice more than Vicenza Tim. If you want someone in a job that most would think required military chops how about Secretary of the Army?
oldyeller
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Overseeing a department with close to a trillion dollar budget, and close to 3 million employees, I'd suspect more evidence of executive responsibility for an organization suitably large would be a dominant consideration.

Prior service could help, but isn't essential given civilian control, as others have noted. I think it mostly helps with individuals who were senior enough to have more familiarity with appropriations and acquisitions.

I don't see this guy getting confirmed unless there's something in his background that many aren't seeing.
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

more evidence of executive responsibility for an organization suitably large would be a dominant consideration
What other organization would you consider suitably large?

Is there anything that actually compares to DoD? Trillions in budget and millions of employees? Does that even really exist outside the Pentagon?

While a review of previous SecDefs (SecWar/Navy) shows some with significant military experience, the only thing I really see in common in many cases is political chops.

Is that really what we SHOULD base this on? I'm not saying Hegseth is the right guy, I'm just wondering how we should define who the "right" guy is?
Ol Jock 99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
44 and on his 3rd wife. Impressive.

Seems highly unqualified, but I'm by no means an expert. Anyone read any of his books?
Ol Jock 99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
cavscout96 said:

Other side of the coin -

What, if any, are the disqualifiers?

-basically no executive experience
-he pretty much an unknown in the defense and intelligence world
-not a think tank guy (which could help with the lack of exec experience)

Putting a young guy like this in charge of the largest and most complex part of government in a very fraught time seems…bold. Not to mention his personal life.

Kristi Naom, dog killing and all, would have been a better call.
74OA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
His sole military quals are that he was once a Guard major with a couple of overseas deployments.

He's never run a large organization of any kind, or had any senior national security, political or even corporate experience that would prepare him to run giant DOD, particularly at a time when China is an accelerating threat, Russia is invading its neighbor, and the ME is on fire.

There's a reason, after all, why majors aren't promoted directly to general, much less to SECDEF.

He's nominated over vastly more qualified other Republicans because Trump believes he'll do what he's told, no matter what that order is.
oldyeller
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
cavscout96 said:

Quote:

more evidence of executive responsibility for an organization suitably large would be a dominant consideration
What other organization would you consider suitably large?

Is there anything that actually compares to DoD? Trillions in budget and millions of employees? Does that even really exist outside the Pentagon?


There's really nothing that compares in terms of scale, but significant corporate experience with a large multi-national, or where massive contracts and dealing with governmental entities is common is what I would expect many might envision for someone nominated for a position like this.

Quote:

While a review of previous SecDefs (SecWar/Navy) shows some with significant military experience, the only thing I really see in common in many cases is political chops.

Is that really what we SHOULD base this on? I'm not saying Hegseth is the right guy, I'm just wondering how we should define who the "right" guy is?


I suppose that depends on whether or not we believe political savvy should be the dominant consideration for this role, or simply supplemental to other factors.

If I were doing the choosing, I'd be looking for a candidate with the political aptitude to navigate the vipers den that is DC, the intelligence to understand the short term and long term impacts of budget decisions on our strategic aims, the backbone to give it to the President straight, and the character to do what is right, no matter the cost.
Trinity Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
DoD largely runs itself.

What it generally lacks is clear direction, priorities, and a willingness to make hard decisions and say "no" in an environment where we have enjoyed relatively high levels of defense spending since the Reagan Administration.

DoD won't stop functioning because a SecDef is inexperienced -- subordinate leaders will just pursue their own priorities through alternative oversight relationships.
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ol Jock 99 said:

cavscout96 said:

Other side of the coin -

What, if any, are the disqualifiers?

-basically no executive experience
-he pretty much an unknown in the defense and intelligence world
-not a think tank guy (which could help with the lack of exec experience)

Putting a young guy like this in charge of the largest and most complex part of government in a very fraught time seems…bold. Not to mention his personal life.

Kristi Naom, dog killing and all, would have been a better call.
I wasn't talking about Hesgeth in particular, but your points are noted.

I'm looking for general disqualifiers.

As to his age, one could be elected President at age 35.

Obama was 47
Kennedy was 43
Cleveland was 47
Clinton was 46
Garland and Polk were both 49

I don't consider age alone to be a valid disqualifier.

Patrick Murphy was the "acting" SecArmy under Obama at 43 y/o
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
74OA said:

His sole military quals are that he was once a Guard major with a couple of overseas deployments.

He's never run a large organization of any kind, or had any senior national security, political or even corporate experience that would prepare him to run giant DOD, particularly at a time when China is an accelerating threat, Russia is invading its neighbor, and the ME is on fire.

There's a reason, after all, why majors aren't promoted directly to general, much less to SECDEF.

He's nominated over vastly more qualified other Republicans because Trump believes he'll do what he's told, no matter what that order is.
So you have to have been a senior executive or defense official already or a flag officer to qualify for SecDef?
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I mostly concur with the second part. Not sure I'm totally on board with the first.

I think there is a place for the agility and non-conforming thought that comes from having NOT served at some of the positions you mentioned.

I don't know if this is the right guy or not, but I'm also not sure that someone from outside the establishment wouldn't be what the organization needs.
Ol Jock 99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
My personal view is that anyone in their 30s/40s, especially younger 40s, better be a freaking rock star. Not sure if the weekend host of Fox and Friends meets that.

Now, he's no Matt Gaetz, so he isn't the worst nominee anymore…
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Trinity Ag said:

DoD largely runs itself.

What it generally lacks is clear direction, priorities, and a willingness to make hard decisions and say "no" in an environment where we have enjoyed relatively high levels of defense spending since the Reagan Administration.

DoD won't stop functioning because a SecDef is inexperienced

-- subordinate leaders will just pursue their own priorities through alternative oversight relationships.
100% True
1000% True
100% True
Unfortunately, in some cases - also 100% True
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ol Jock 99 said:

My personal view is that anyone in their 30s/40s, especially younger 40s, better be a freaking rock star. Not sure if the weekend host of Fox and Friends meets that.

Now, he's no Matt Gaetz, so he isn't the worst nominee anymore…
So 42yo JFK was a bad choice? 43 yo T. Roosevelt?

Now, they both certainly had significant political experience, but I'm curious why the blanket "age limit" on who can get the job done?

Jefferson was 33 when he penned the Declaration. Adams was 40 when he signed it. George Washington was 44.

Serious question. Is the age itself that concerns you, or the maturity (or lack of) of contemporary 30/40 y/o?
Ol Jock 99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I need to move back back to my "I don't really know enough about this guy to have an educated opinion" stance.

JD Vance is young but experienced
Elise Stefanik is young but experienced

I personally think this cat's experience is lacking. Could well be wrong.
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fair enough and I don't know enough about him either.

I'm sure there will be plenty of folks on both sides with opinions over the next two months.
Trinity Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
For what it is worth, the Deputy Secretary of Defense generally does the majority of the "internal" management of the department.

The SecDef is often "up and out" focused -- working with the Principals Committee (POTUS, VP, SecState, DNI, National Security Advisor, etc), working with combatant commanders, and other Defense Ministers (NATO, peer-to-peer, etc).

Budget development, strategy, acquisition, and the nuts & bolts process for running the department is primarily delegated.

Of course, every SecDef runs it the way he wants -- within the constraints of his time & capacity.

With a guy like Hegseth you would expect him to pick a DSD with some significant experience in the Pentagon -- like Ryan McCarthy.
JA83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hegseth will be very difficult to get through Senate confirmation, and if he makes it, the E-ring dwellers will do everything they can to thwart his initiatives. They've entrenched themselves and are the epitome of the Deep State. There literally thousands of people in OSD, the Joint Staff, and the Service staffs who do very little on a daily basis, but you can be sure they'll fight to keep their jobs and the policies that support them.

Maybe Trump's team is using Hegseth as a distraction to get some real game changers inserted?
Tanker123
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SECDEF entails someone with executive experience and preferably retired general officers.

This is what he said: "First of all, you've got to fire the chairman of the Joint Chiefs," Hegseth said, referring to Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. "Any general, any admiral, whatever," who was involved in diversity, equity and inclusion programs or "woke s---" has "got to go," Hegseth said."

I find it interesting many allude to a woke culture in the military, but I have yet to see evidence of it.
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Tanker123 said:

SECDEF entails someone with executive experience and preferably retired general officers.

This is what he said: "First of all, you've got to fire the chairman of the Joint Chiefs," Hegseth said, referring to Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. "Any general, any admiral, whatever," who was involved in diversity, equity and inclusion programs or "woke s---" has "got to go," Hegseth said."

I find it interesting many allude to a woke culture in the military, but I have yet to see evidence of it.
Since WWII there have been 32 Secretaries or Acting Secretaries.

THREE have been former Generals. the Secdef position is about civilian control of the Defense Department.

Other SecDefs have ranged from SGT - LT - LTCDR - COL Most of those were WWII veterans and a couple of Vietnam veterans with only a handful of field grade /career service members.
Tanker123
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cavscout96 said:

Tanker123 said:

SECDEF entails someone with executive experience and preferably retired general officers.

This is what he said: "First of all, you've got to fire the chairman of the Joint Chiefs," Hegseth said, referring to Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. "Any general, any admiral, whatever," who was involved in diversity, equity and inclusion programs or "woke s---" has "got to go," Hegseth said."

I find it interesting many allude to a woke culture in the military, but I have yet to see evidence of it.
Since WWII there have been 32 Secretaries or Acting Secretaries.

THREE have been former Generals. the Secdef position is about civilian control of the Defense Department.

Other SecDefs have ranged from SGT - LT - LTCDR - COL Most of those were WWII veterans and a couple of Vietnam veterans with only a handful of field grade /career service members.
When generals retire, they are civilians. I think the CINC is civilian as well. lol
Trinity Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Tanker123 said:

cavscout96 said:

Tanker123 said:

SECDEF entails someone with executive experience and preferably retired general officers.

This is what he said: "First of all, you've got to fire the chairman of the Joint Chiefs," Hegseth said, referring to Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. "Any general, any admiral, whatever," who was involved in diversity, equity and inclusion programs or "woke s---" has "got to go," Hegseth said."

I find it interesting many allude to a woke culture in the military, but I have yet to see evidence of it.
Since WWII there have been 32 Secretaries or Acting Secretaries.

THREE have been former Generals. the Secdef position is about civilian control of the Defense Department.

Other SecDefs have ranged from SGT - LT - LTCDR - COL Most of those were WWII veterans and a couple of Vietnam veterans with only a handful of field grade /career service members.
When generals retire, they are civilians. I think the CINC is civilian as well. lol
Yes, and no.

Retired GOs are civilians in some ways, but remain generals, and on the rolls -- and have restrictions that other vets do not.

And it is has been a long-term norm to NOT have former 4-stars as SECDEF -- in part because they are naturally parochial toward their former service and tend to bias toward the uniform vs the civilian side.

Noblemen06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Tanker123 said:

SECDEF entails someone with executive experience and preferably retired general officers.

This is what he said: "First of all, you've got to fire the chairman of the Joint Chiefs," Hegseth said, referring to Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. "Any general, any admiral, whatever," who was involved in diversity, equity and inclusion programs or "woke s---" has "got to go," Hegseth said."

I find it interesting many allude to a woke culture in the military, but I have yet to see evidence of it.


I don't agree there is a woke culture in the military yet but DEI is enshrined in the institution at this point, thanks to the Obama and Biden administrations. The day to day experience of military members in the field isn't living and breathing DEI but there are plenty of artifacts in policy and even strategy documents that indicate DEI is a priority. Hell, the Air Force has a fellowship for O-5s to get a master's in diversity!

A SecDef that wants to tear that down is necessary to ensure the DEI policy apparatus doesn't consume the culture before it is too late.

That said, I do not like targeting Gen Brown in the manner Hegseth did in his Shawn Ryan podcast. Gen Brown seems to have committed an unforgivable sin (in the eyes of the anti-woke military mob) of commenting on racial tensions in the wake of George Floyd. He wasn't even playing the woke game when he did it, but there's little reasoning when it comes to someone who wants to find a boogeyman.

To the contrary, his priority as Chairman is almost identical to Hegseth's when it comes to focusing the Joint Force on warfighting and building warfighting capacity (in weapons, platforms, etc.) to be able to beat China or anyone else in a conflict. On multiple public occasions, he's been overt in his position that he does not favor tipping the scales in favor of any particular demographic group because it always means taking away opportunity from others - which is pretty much the underlying intent of the anti-DEI movement.

It'll be a shame if they don't give Gen Brown a chance to work for the Trump administration before giving him the axe - he's as beholden to civilian priorities as anyone else in the uniform-wearing side of the DoD. The Chairman isn't going to lead a rebellion against the SecDef and POTUS - unless you're Gen Milley. We shouldn't desire that kind of disruption of our republic's design. The JCS under Brown is night and day different than under Gen Milley (who no one misses for a myriad of reasons including his completely inappropriate politicization of his office as CJCS and disruption of the civilian-military relationship).
Tanker123
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Noblemen06 said:

Tanker123 said:

SECDEF entails someone with executive experience and preferably retired general officers.

This is what he said: "First of all, you've got to fire the chairman of the Joint Chiefs," Hegseth said, referring to Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. "Any general, any admiral, whatever," who was involved in diversity, equity and inclusion programs or "woke s---" has "got to go," Hegseth said."

I find it interesting many allude to a woke culture in the military, but I have yet to see evidence of it.


I don't agree there is a woke culture in the military yet but DEI is enshrined in the institution at this point, thanks to the Obama and Biden administrations. The day to day experience of military members in the field isn't living and breathing DEI but there are plenty of artifacts in policy and even strategy documents that indicate DEI is a priority. Hell, the Air Force has a fellowship for O-5s to get a master's in diversity!

A SecDef that wants to tear that down is necessary to ensure the DEI policy apparatus doesn't consume the culture before it is too late.

That said, I do not like targeting Gen Brown in the manner Hegseth did in his Shawn Ryan podcast. Gen Brown seems to have committed an unforgivable sin (in the eyes of the anti-woke military mob) of commenting on racial tensions in the wake of George Floyd. He wasn't even playing the woke game when he did it, but there's little reasoning when it comes to someone who wants to find a boogeyman.

To the contrary, his priority as Chairman is almost identical to Hegseth's when it comes to focusing the Joint Force on warfighting and building warfighting capacity (in weapons, platforms, etc.) to be able to beat China or anyone else in a conflict. On multiple public occasions, he's been overt in his position that he does not favor tipping the scales in favor of any particular demographic group because it always means taking away opportunity from others - which is pretty much the underlying intent of the anti-DEI movement.

It'll be a shame if they don't give Gen Brown a chance to work for the Trump administration before giving him the axe - he's as beholden to civilian priorities as anyone else in the uniform-wearing side of the DoD. The Chairman isn't going to lead a rebellion against the SecDef and POTUS - unless you're Gen Milley. We shouldn't desire that kind of disruption of our republic's design. The JCS under Brown is night and day different than under Gen Milley (who no one misses for a myriad of reasons including his completely inappropriate politicization of his office as CJCS and disruption of the civilian-military relationship).
I retired from the army 10 years ago. The only training we received in regard to social issues in the army was regarding Equal Opportunity. Essentially do not discriminate based on the protected classes. There was no mention about past social issues and injustices. I don't consider this "woke". "Woke" is thrown around constantly, but I have yet to see evidence of it in the military.
Noblemen06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
A lot has changed in the past 10 years.

There's an office under OSD P&R for DEI. Each of the military departments have their own DEI or DEIA offices/strategies/plans, etc. The services give awards for DEI initiatives and fund them in the millions of dollars each year ($114.7M in the 2024 DoD budget submission). Combatant Command strategy documents include DEI concepts. USINDOPACOM has "gender advisors." I can go on.

My point is the troops aren't indoctrinated (yet) but the policy side needs to be gutted. DEI is cultural poison.

Merely a sample of the mounds of DEI-related policy/initiatives in DoD:
[url] https://diversity.defense.gov/Policy/[/url]
[url] https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/Diversity/DAF-Diversity-Equity-Inclusion-Accessibility-Strategic-Plan-2023.pdf[/url]
[url] https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2023/06/05/f2c4e305/aps-mip-chapter-7-advance-diversity-equity-inclusion-and-accessibility.pdf[/url]
[url] https://www.mynavyhr.navy.mil/Support-Services/Culture-Resilience/Diversity-Equity-Inclusion/[/url]
[url] https://www.hqmc.marines.mil/Diversity/[/url]
[url] https://www.pacom.mil/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/3923322/us-indo-pacific-command-concludes-second-indo-pacific-regional-military-gender/#:~:text=The%202024%20RGC%20cohort%20learned,Indo%2DPacific%20Military%20Gender%20Advisors.[/url]
[url] https://www.osi.af.mil/Portals/29/B_183_Matherly_One_Team_One_Fight_1.pdf[/url]
[url] https://www.tradoc.army.mil/cdo_awards/[/url]
[url] https://co.ng.mil/Portals/25/Images/EDI/NG%20Awards-Recognition%20Resource%20Guide-FY22.pdf[/url]
[url] https://www.navy.com/navy-life/who-we-are/diversity-equity[/url]
Tanker123
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Let the purge begin according to the crystal ball.
HollywoodBQ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Trinity Ag said:

For what it is worth, the Deputy Secretary of Defense generally does the majority of the "internal" management of the department.

The SecDef is often "up and out" focused -- working with the Principals Committee (POTUS, VP, SecState, DNI, National Security Advisor, etc), working with combatant commanders, and other Defense Ministers (NATO, peer-to-peer, etc).

Budget development, strategy, acquisition, and the nuts & bolts process for running the department is primarily delegated.

Of course, every SecDef runs it the way he wants -- within the constraints of his time & capacity.

With a guy like Hegseth you would expect him to pick a DSD with some significant experience in the Pentagon -- like Ryan McCarthy.
Just stopped by to say "Rah Va Mil"
I was on Post in Lexington last weekend and it was glorious.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_D._McCarthy
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I agree. McCarthy is a solid person to have around.
cavscout96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
But wait... We was only a CAPTAIN?!?!?

"Gasp!"
Trinity Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
cavscout96 said:

But wait... We was only a CAPTAIN?!?!?

"Gasp!"

So was Esper.
Hincemm
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hincemm said:

I know this may turn into a political diatribe/


Inadvertently called my shot as the OP
Last Page
Page 1 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.